Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1996/12/26
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Some comments on bits of this thread: >My diesel >Elmarit 180mm is just too heavy for many activities. You know, it weighs >more than may back pack. You may have the older 180 2.8 (normally 2-cam, for the SL, etc.) If so, you should look at the current model, which is optically very good and MUCH smaller. It's been around for a while, so you should be able to find a nice used one. >Incidentally, can someone comment on the durability of the post-diesel Leica >bodies. Here I mean the R4-R7. > Avoid the R4 and R4S (I can provide chapter and verse if you want.) Everything else is by reputation OK. >>>....if I did want to sell off my Nikon gear for some reason, a Contax >system was all I was really >interested in until now. >> >>Working on the assumption that R lenses are as good as, if not superior >>to M glass, I tallied up the cost of the 1 body, 6 lens system that I >>wanted.... about US $20,000. Groan. My only alternative was Contax, >>and a similarly configured system came to about $10,000 -- half the >>price of the Leica R system. OK, but you must remember that only a few of the Contax SLR lenses are "European" (if your point is, as seems true for so many on this list, to avoid Japanese equipment)--most of the lenses are manufactured in Japan, and, despite Zeiss propaganda, it's doubtful if they really design them all (the only ones you can be really sure about are ancient, superannuated ones like the 25, which goes all the way back to bullseye days). Japan does keep costs down better than Leica, even though the Contaxes have never been big sellers (note, e.g., how much cheaper the Contax 15 is than the Leica equivalent, even though it's the same glass). IMHO, the lenses are nice physically, but not as nice as Leicas. In addition, the cameras are Japanese designs. >> >>As well, the RTSIII body was far superior in features to any R body (the >>new R8 possibly excepted). >> Well, the RTS III is still superior in features to the R8, though the gap has been closed some. The RTS III is also beautifully made. But it is HUGE and HEAVY--like the Nikon F4 and F5 it makes you carry monster batteries and a fast drive even if you don't want them. If you are going to buy a Contax and don't need the drive, the RX and similar cameras are a better design, I think. Canon has a good compromise with the EOS-1, I think--a winder built in, with a heavy attachment for those who want an extra fast drive. However, I really prefer the R series here--don't force automation on those who don't need it--and the R's also have a manual winding lever available! One last comment on the cameras--although it's much more expensive, the R6 has so many more features than the Contax S2 that the S2 pales. The S2 is a cool manual camera, but lacks everything but the most primitive basics--no TTL, no choice of metering modes, no drive or winder, etc. I also must add another comment on a "feature." The Contax lens system is simply not comparable to the Leica one in variety. The Contax has no fast or long zooms, e.g., and is woefully short on long lenses generally. Charles E. Love, Jr. CEL14@CORNELL.EDU